Judge Rules Games Are "Expressive Works"

There has been an ongoing legal battle over the past few years about how and when game makers can use the likenesses of football players without their permission. Former college football player Samuel Keller filed a class action suit in May against Electronic Arts for the publisher's use of NCAA players' information — including things like jersey number, height, weight, skin tone and hair style, but not names — to recreate actual teams within sports games. An earlier suit filed by NFL Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown brought up the fact that video games weren't even a consideration when contracts and licensing rights were negotiated in the '50s and '60s, yet many football players from that era (including Brown) are represented in the occasional sports game whether they like it or not. A ruling came down from a district court judge last Wednesday stating that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment," and are thus protected under the First Amendment. Brown and fellow Hall-of-Famer Herb Adderley are now seeking to throw their support behind Keller's lawsuit.

Comments

No shit sherlock

[aussie_a]

Of course they are.

Its sad when we all applaud a judge actually making a good ruling. Shouldn't that simply be the assumed state of all rulings?

Re:No shit sherlock

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Why is this so obvious? Personally I would have counted video games as a commercial medium, the same as gift cards for example. They are made for the sole purpose of being sold and making as much money as possible. It is hard to count something as expression when it is made by hundreds of different people and controlled by a board of directors.

Re:No shit sherlock

[stephanruby]

Saturday Night Live is a commercial medium. The Obama poster was being sold for profit. But you don't see Sarah Palin or Obama suing either party. Public figures are fair game, whether it's for profit, or not for profit.

Facts and figures are not copyrightable

[MobyDisk]

Facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. And how can public information be abused? They just want money.

Re:So...

[Trepidity]

This ruling is actually arguing that you don't need any license at all, from anyone, because it's First-Amendment-protected expressive speech.

Copyright Will Eat Itself

[Bob9113]

In this corner, wearing the blue and yellow trunks, weighing in at 800 pounds, he's pure gorilla madness, we have -- Big Copyright!

And in this corner, wearing the green and pink trunks, weighing in at 800 points, he's the thrilla gorilla, we have -- Big Copyright!

Alright gentleman (and I use that term loosely), I want a dirty fight, with obscure legal references, wildly out of control laws, and frequent appeals to artistic freedom, the rights of the performer, and the advance of the useful arts when you really mean "money." We're also going to expect at least $1 million to go to lawyers on each side, and another $1 million each in extra campaign contributions this year. When you hear the bell ring, come out and start working the groin!

Let's get readyyyyyyyyy to rummmmmmbullllll. (am I going to get sued for typing that?)

Having purchased laws sufficient for them to eat their customers and finding their appetite still unsated, big copyright is now using its own laws against itself. There have been a few stories like this recently. That is so awesome. Mmmmm, mmmm, how does chewing on your own leg taste, buddy? Sure am happy to see that your laws are so strict, and your arrogant contempt has grown so complete, that you have actually started hating yourself. Have fun knuckleheads -- I'll be over here watching user generated content.